This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

Since there is Category:Climate change by country, I consider Climate change in the United States as the main article. It is also stated as the main article. One may argue should it be: Category:Global warming by country and Global warming in the United States. It does not make any difference for me. The main article may include many subarticles. One of them is in my opinion now Politics of global warming (United States). The main article should include an overview and links to the more detailed articles. Anyone can start new more detailed articles, if the content is not considered better in the main article. Since this series is alredy long, this discussion, if relevant should be here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Climate change/Climate change articles by country. In my opinion the merge tag can be removed now here. Watti Renew (talk) 15:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The {{for}} tag is as bad here as in Politics. It may be possible to modify the lede to include an appropriate reference, if you need to, but the tag is wrong. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 16:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

You show no understanding of Wikipedia policies. If C is more relevant to B than to A, and B is linked to A, then we do not put C in the "See also" section or as a {{for}} tag in A, only in B. And your easter eggs linked to scientific opinion on climate change or not funny. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 08:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. I moved one climate change denial from the "See also" section into the text, where it was properly sourced. Your addition of links where the relevance is not clear (and often not even plausible) is boring. If you want to add the links, add them correctly to the text without using easter eggs, and I'll let it go, even if I think it false, if it appears to be appropriately sourced.

And you have never once articulated a reason for your edits. Sometimes, after I complain on the talk page, some one else comes up with a reason. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 09:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

<redacted comment questioning the identity of the wolf and the sheep>. Request the last edit (99.155.156.167) and this one be hidden as not being helpful, and return to actually producing a reason for the anon's edits. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 10:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This year has seen three times as many weather-related disasters than what is typical, and NOAA expects summer 2011 figures - due to be released next week - will show the warmest summer on record, The Guardian reports.

"Not since the great heat waves of 1934 and 1936 has the U.S. seen so many heat-related records broken as occurred this summer," Christopher Burt, author of Extreme Weather: A Guide and Record Book, told The Guardian. "The back-to-back nature of the intensity of the past two summers should raise some interesting questions - questions I am not qualified to address." ... Among other phenomena:

Interesting. However, does anyone have a theory which potentially connects climate change to earthquakes. If not, we need to remove that and anything referencing it in the body of the article, before attempting to use it as a reference. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 00:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The results look like: if the global temperature rises 10 degrees, we might have 10% more earthquakes. Not enough correlation, except among the anti-science extremists on both sides, to mention earthquakes in the context of global warming. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 03:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Hurricane Irene this year pushed the U.S. yearly record for billion-dollar natural disasters to 10, smashing the 2008 record of nine. In the "Current Extreme Weather and Climate Change" report, released today by the Climate Communication scientific group, leading climate scientists outlined how increasing global atmospheric temperatures and other climate change effects -- triggered by industrial emissions of greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide and methane -- are loading the dice for the sort of extreme weather seen this year. ... "Small increases in temperature set the stage for record breaking extreme temperature events." Overall, says the report, higher temperatures tied to global warming, about a one-degree global average temperature rise in the last century, have widely contributed to recent runs of horrible weather:

In 1950, U.S. record breaking hot weather days were as likely as cold ones. By 2000, they were twice as likely, and in 2011 they are three times more likely, so far. By the end of the century they will be 50 times more likely, Meehl says.

With global warming's higher temperatures packing about 4% more water into the atmosphere, total average U.S. snow and rainfall has increased by about 7% in the past century, says the study. The amount of rain falling in the heaviest 1% of cloudbursts has increased 20%, leading to more flooding.

Early snow melt, and more rain rather than snow, has led to water cycle changes in the western U.S. in river flow, winter air temperature, and snow pack from 1950 to 1999. The effects are up to 60% attributable to human influence.

Rather than totally triggering any extreme event, global warming just makes it worse, says meteorologist Jeff Masters of Weather Underground, a report reviewer. "A warmer atmosphere has more energy," he says, contributing to heat waves, tornadoes and other extremes. Even heavy blizzards come from an atmosphere packed with extra moisture by global warming he adds. "Years like 2011 may be the new normal."

The report notes scientific disagreement exists over the role of global warming in some severe weather events, such as hurricanes, or the frequency of El Niño weather patterns. "There's really no such thing as natural weather anymore," says climate scientist Donald Wuebbles of the University of Illinois, who was not involved with the report, but said he largely agreed with its conclusions. "Anything that takes place today in the weather system has been affected by the changes we've made to the climate system. That's just the background situation and it's good for people to know that," Wuebbles says. Although scientists cannot immediately tie what percentage of an extreme weather event relies on global warming to make it more severe, he says. "It's always a factor in today's world." Another outside climate scientist, Gavin Schmidt of Columbia University, said by email that public discussions of the role of climate change in extreme weather events, "oscillate between two equally unlikely extremes - that all weather events are caused by global warming or that global warming has no effect on weather at all." Too often, the discussion finally descends to name-calling ("alarmist" or "denier") between disagreeing sides, he adds: The facts of the matter are this: the planet's climate has changed over the last 30 years, chiefly because of human activities."

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I just checked the cite. It is (1) almost accurate, (2) it only diverges from the source in that the text says it is 100% certain (which is my personal opinion too) but the source only says its 90-99% certain, and (3) I don't like the text due to over-simplicity and over-brevity, but that's just my style opinion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

If it doesn't say its only >90% certain that humans are to blame then it will not comport with the source, and that will still be true no matter how the text or refs might be altered and improved. (And this is coming from an editor who tried to insert Lonnie Thompson's infamous "clear and present danger to civilization" bit in Global Warming. I think its 100% dead certain humans are doing it. But the inescapable reality is that the source only says its "very likely" and they use IPCC's meaning of that phrase which is ">90%" ( the source inaccurately quotes IPCC as saying its 90-99% certain, but IPCC AR4 says the phrase means ">90%", which of course would include the number 100... this is being talked about right now on the Global Warming talk page.) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, when I looked, I didn't see it in the source material at all. Adding the "extreme weather" page as a source would be helpful. On the other hand, wouldn't translating "very likely" in a EPA document as "> 90%" from IPCC, be synthesis? I think we would need the definition to be in an EPA document. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 19:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree the original article text just gave [[a homepage] for the reference and that's annoying. Arthur, it took me 30 seconds to confirm all of this info at the website, and <10sec to look up the human and very likely bit.... if you click the "science" button on the homepage, and then search that page for "human" the first hit you get has the phrase "very likely", and the definition of what % that means, complete with a citation to IPCC as the source for that info. So no, it most certainly is not a synthesis.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Lest anyone misunderstand, I only said the deleted text ((is)) supported by the source. I did ((not)) say the deleted text made an important improvement to the article. It doesn't, because it's far too general, and amounts to a verbose link, even though most of the words were not in the url.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC) I see I'm commenting even as you are editing, so I'll retract this and comment later, if I feel inspired, after text has stabilized. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/temperatures/July Was the Fourth-Warmest on Record by Joanna M. Foster August 9, 2011, 12:05 PM "Results are in from the first stage of this summer’s heat wave, ... The nation’s average temperature was 77 degrees, almost 3 degrees above normal, and states like Oklahoma and Texas had the hottest July ever, with average temperatures of 88.9 and 87.1 respectively. Oklahoma’s statewide average temperature was the warmest for any state for any month on record. Temperatures in Dallas exceeded 100 degrees on 30 of the 31 days in July. Over all, 85.4 percent of states in the continental United States experienced July temperatures exceeding the long-term average. NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center maintains temperature records dating back to 1895." 99.35.15.107 (talk) 04:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Blogs are not a reliable source even those from newspapers. Also, climate change is about long term change not individual extreme weather events (although collectively they are part of climate change). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Heat waves stretching across states for many days are "consistent" with global warming projections made in the past decade, said climate scientist Norman Miller of the University of California-Berkeley.

While scientists caution that no individual extreme weather event can be conclusively linked to global warming, this summer is consistent with computer-model predictions of hotter days, warmer nights and more severe droughts.

"Since roughly the 1850s or so, we've seen an increase globally of about eight-tenths of a degree Celsius, so that's roughly 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit," said Todd Sanford, a climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington. ... Alden Meyer, the director of climate strategy and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, says global warming affects weather and water cycles. "You have increased flooding and extreme downpours combined with droughts and desertification in some regions of the world. So there's tremendous variability here, and we're seeing that with extreme weather events on the increase, not only here in the U.S. but around the world," Meyer said. ... "Last year saw the largest single increase in history to the largest emissions amounts," Sanford said.

The article states (1) there was record-breaking weather in 2011-2012, and (2) polls show public reaction to extreme weather led to increased belief in global warming. It does not make the connection, and we shouldn't, either. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 13:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

In Europe, the notion of human influence on climate gained wide acceptance more rapidly than in many other parts of the world, most notably the United States.[4][5] There is growing awareness in the US, such as with 350.org[2] (based in the US) and the International Day of Climate Action.

The article said that there has been, broadly speaking, no increase in drought in the United States in the past decades. That's what it said. There is no OR, no SYNTH, and no other issues. Read the article. The only reason for not including this would be from an undue weight perspective, but there's no article brought to my attention that would say that this article is out of the mainstream science. For Christ's sake, it was published in Geophysical Research Letters. That's not 'fringe science'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoffeeWithMarkets (talk • contribs)

The pre-existing sentence that I tagged with CN? That should get replaced with a some RSs on the projections of increasing extent/frequency/severity of drought punctuated by deluges. The study you found would fit nicely after that to show how things are shaping up thus far but leave out the word "however" which can suggest negation of whatever went before it. Use of the "however" is the basis of my SYNTH assertion. In addition, when this RS is mentioned, we should also cover the rest of the findings, e.g., that drought has in fact increased in the W/SW although not for the country overall as you say. On the flip side, there's a study out showing increasing frequency/severity of central US deluges. That ties in here too. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I added the study about drought back with the 'However' taken out, so there's no synth. I'll cite the thing about the southwest being different in the rest of the country when I see a citation about that specifically (if you have one, please add it). As for the issue of deluges and overly wet periods, that may be a regional problem for the Midwest but it's not an issue for the country as a whole as per the EPA's information. Climate change for the U.S. as a whole has meant neither more drought nor more wet periods according to many sources (of course, this does not mean one does not have concerns / interesting findinds about climate changes for specific sub-reigions).

Dry and wet U.S. conditions.

Of course, if you want to add something like "Research reported in March 2013 found that the U.S. midwest has ___" that would make perfect sense. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I see you only joined us in October last year and have less than 500 edits. Will you accept some advice?

First when you revert, just revert. Then, if you want to change something, do that in another edit. I have put your text back where you had it the first time.

Second, you are required to discuss to try to reach a consensus. If you give that your best shot but can't make hay, then you're supposed to turn to our dispute resoultion process. Your not justified in cutting short the discuss part of BRD and just restoring your text in short order.

Third, on the content itself, sure I have source for increased drought in the SW - the very RS you added! Note that the abstract (url here) says "Droughts have, for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and cover a smaller portion of the country over the last century. The main exception is the Southwest and parts of the interior of the West, where, notwithstanding increased precipitation (and in some cases increased soil moisture and runoff), increased temperature has led to trends in drought characteristics that are mostly opposite to those for the rest of the country especially in the case of drought duration and severity, which have increased."

Fourth, yep, I could add this material to fix your cherrypicking. For now I'll choose to assume your cherrypicking was in good faith. But your text still gives a false impression of this study's results, because you've omitted some very key information, especially to the folks that depend on moisture in that part of the country. So instead of fixing the cherrypicking myself, I'm attempting - right or wrong - to mentor a relative newbie who appears to be interested in this subject area and may not be privvy to the particulars of our policy about neutral points of view. Please add the bit about the SW & interior West's increased drought severity and duration and all will be good.

If at any time you're unhappy with me, and talk pages don't fix it, then please proceed to WP:DR. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I already responded on my talk page a bit, but I should also respond here. I see from your words, your actions, and your past editing history in particular that you have a negative reputation as an edit warrior prone to personal attacks. That's unfortunate. But then the nature of the site is such that prehaps you will mellow out or change to more NPOV actions in the future. Anyways, for the article as of now, the specific subsections appear balanced to me, though I know that you may revert it without explanation at some point.

As for the rest of the section, it does give an inaccurate view of climate change as per the facts right now. Hurricanes in terms of number and storm strength have no decreased in the U.S. Wet periods have not decreased. Tornadoes have no increased. Droughts have not decreased. Deaths from heat waves, cold waves, and storm-related issues have actually significantly declined. This is all easily looked up. Of course, how exactly to expand the section is certainly something that is messy since, of course, the factual predictions of all these things increasing in the future (though they're not doing so now). It's perfectly logical that drastic warming (maybe of the 4-degrees C level or such) would do that. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The Guardian wrote that iIn 2012 members of US Congress received more than $34m from oil, gas and coal companies – money to ensure they do nothing on climate change. [3] Is it not so that when a congressman have received funds from the oil industry she/he is unqualified to take part in any climate change discussion and voting in the congress? Watti Renew (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The source is obviously an editorial or essay, and doesn't support the statement made. Furthermore, even if the article were reliable and correct, your second sentence is absurd. However, this (at least on the face) is related to improvements in the article, even if it would really only be appropriate in the subarticle on political action on climate change in the United States. Hence, it's staying on the talk page, unlike your other essays which were quite properly removed from this talk page. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 09:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

so we all no there are tectonic plates and a general idea of how they work. my idea is that if the oceans are rising then the it would put more presher on them. there for we will see more consistent earthquakes along the more active folt lines sech as the ring of fire.along with more volcano erupting also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lance entze (talk • contribs) 22:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Industry pays in many countries less from energy than private persons. Also in the USA? How is this argumented? As I see it the more one use energy the higher the price pro kW should be. Industry support should not promote large use of energy but rather high domestic employment. According to Polluter pays principle industry should pay not only higher energy price but also pay the environmental and material long term damages high energy use has caused. Has this been considered in the United States? Watti Renew (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)